Replies

I have to say that I don't really know what transpired in that parking lot just from looking at a video tape. The mother may or may not be a child abuser. However, I have to agree with you on many levels.

If you believe that the government, state, federal, or otherwise, has the power to remove child from natural parent, then anything else you claim to believe as an supposed individualistic, non-intrusive government "conservative" is meaningless. If this mother is guilty of aggravated assault, then arrest her and charge her with aggravated assault. If she is convicted, then she should go to prison, and the child goes into the sole custody of the father or next of kin, aka closest living relative. If the mom is found not guilty, then she is not guilty, and she goes home with her daughter. At NO TIME should a child be in the custody of a government agency. Government has not been delegated that authority by the people.

SR, I've never seen you do anything BUT post drivel, anyway, so a declaration as to "meaninglessness" from you is itself meaningless.

One more session with the bong this evening ought to calm you down again, bud.

I knew of a case once where a little boy was taken from his mother by a government agency because the mother was abusing him. Then a judge ruled that she could have her child back. When she regained custody of him, she resumed abusing the child until finally he became permanently blind due to repeated blows to his head.

So what you're saying is we should wait until a child is permanently injured or dead to do something about an abusive parent? What logic.